In many social and professional situations it is either of the above for me. It depends and frankly it's not easy to decide since normal adult behavior and presentation is so strange. A lot of healthy behavior/urges/attitudes might seem childlike. But I am so sick of the marrionette feeling, regardless.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But I am so sick of the marrionette feeling, regardless.

Do you mean an uneasiness with having to be one or the other, or more of a larger, existential aspect that a person has to deal with?

I ask that because you note the ability to adapt to the situation yet at the same time express unease about it. It might not be the best analogy, but it's like saying there are many flowers and each requires different tending. But you know what? I'm so tired of being a gardener.

Personally, I have to admit existential gardens can be disenchanting at times.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But I am so sick of the marrionette feeling, regardless.

Do you mean an uneasiness with having to be one or the other, or more of a larger, existential aspect that a person has to deal with?

I ask that because you note the ability to adapt to the situation yet at the same time express unease about it. It might not be the best analogy, but it's like saying there are many flowers and each requires different tending. But you know what? I'm so tired of being a gardener.

Personally, I have to admit existential gardens can be disenchanting at times.

I marrionette because there is so much one needs to pretend (around emotions and reactions and then also beliefs) in various situations. Pretending one is not reacting in certain ways. Pretending certainty, interest. Not responding to idiocy. I have to pick my fights.

To marrionette takes energy. I have my actual reactions, then I have to filter these through various norms, balancing consquences. The filtering takes energy. I am sure actors get tired. I get tired and tired of it. It also has a side effect of giving things an air of unreality.

Personally, what I have done in that respect - and maybe simply because of years of experience - is not concern myself much with how others interpret what my 'marionette' looks like to them. I've found that if I focus on the basics: courtesy, respect, mindfulness, and so on with others, then things go a little smoother. It doesn't mean that both of us are going to get into a happy marionette dance, it means that the "lines" won't get as tangled.

Granted, there are situations that for one reason or another demand a tiring thespianism with little of one's genuine self. I've been there too and looking back upon such situations I can see that mainly they were a waste of time and effort and with karma (if you believe in such things) that took awhile to wipe away.

On the humorous side, I guess better to deal with being a marionette than be a puppet with someone's hand up your ass.

I have always felt that my actions suited my age, if a little too maturely at times.. mum said that none of us four kids really ever had the terrible twos, except for our baby brother. Even so.. I do let my wall down and be silly, but my peers don't always seem to be agreeable with this. It could be an art-educated side effect, of having to delve into self for inspiration, leading to differing ways of self-expression.. something the more polemically-educated seem to not have gotten wired into their ever-evolving psyche.. the scolding set.

I am obviously biased, but I prefer the art/media landscape as a backdrop to my life.. with a score of similar type, to go with.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite..- MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time..Wait, What!- MagsJ

Personally, what I have done in that respect - and maybe simply because of years of experience - is not concern myself much with how others interpret what my 'marionette' looks like to them.

If I wasn't concerned there would be no marionette/marionetteer split. I'd just be me.

I've found that if I focus on the basics: courtesy, respect, mindfulness, and so on with others, then things go a little smoother.

Sure, that's part of the marrionette. Not always, but often.

It doesn't mean that both of us are going to get into a happy marionette dance, it means that the "lines" won't get as tangled.

Yes, it is a practical issue. Though if I have to do it a lot it becomes hard to distinguish from shame or self-hate.

Granted, there are situations that for one reason or another demand a tiring thespianism with little of one's genuine self. I've been there too and looking back upon such situations I can see that mainly they were a waste of time and effort and with karma (if you believe in such things) that took awhile to wipe away.

Having gotten beyond Karma is a pretty big claim.

On the humorous side, I guess better to deal with being a marionette than be a puppet with someone's hand up your ass.

And that is why we often choose to marrionetteer ourselves. To avoid the latter or at least, even more attention and more intense attention from people one cannot be real with.

There are various types of marionettes in the scolding set. Two of them are those whose wires are entangled and knotted yet they feel nothing is amiss, and those who are on the floor, wires strewn about them, and wonder why they have been forsaken.

barbarianhorde wrote:Im often like an adult operating a child marionette. Because that is what society demands.

Society demands that a person present him or herself as a child yet mentally conduct themselves as adults?Or that society has gotten to a point where it has become childish and anything adult is suspect?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If I wasn't concerned there would be no marionette/marionetteer split. I'd just be me.

Not being concerned does not necessarily mean one is not split. What it means, at least in my experience, is a measure of autonomy and from that the possibility of assessing, wire-by-wire if necessary, why the split in the first place. Is the marionettist merely an aspect of myself, or is it an 'other'? That in itself requires some work that may hopefully reveal the true character of just being "me".

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, that's part of the marrionette. Not always, but often.

If courtesy, respect, and mindfulness are some of the wires, yeah, I can live with those.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Though if I have to do it a lot it becomes hard to distinguish from shame or self-hate.

That's why the above-mentioned work on whence the split. Whose shame? Whose hate? it can be rough work, sometimes 24/7. I know.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Having gotten beyond Karma is a pretty big claim.

I did not say I got beyond karma with a capital K. I said there were situations that I felt where the residue and consequences of them were no longer an issue. And Thankfully so.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And that is why we often choose to marrionetteer ourselves.

If you've personally achieved such a choice, then in my opinion you're doing all right. Eventually, shame, self-hate, and all that other stuff won't be an issue.

“Looking good” and keeping up appearances - that’s your thing. And staking you? Will you have self-flattery at any expense? Men like you are easy to control and manipulate. All one has to do is admit that you’re a smart one, and objective, and have a lot of online experience, which qualifies you as a valid authority figure. You’d be purring like a cat. But bullshit masked by scent of roses is still bullshit. Who’s buying? (because you sure are selling)

Have the courtesy, respect, and mindfulness of not trying to hijack a topic that has nothing to do with your seeking closure of some sort.

Towards you I have none of that. I was expressing my opinion of greater issues at stake. Btw, don’t forget to remind everyone that this is your thread, followed by lots and lots of smiley faces, because that necessarily makes you a better person in the eyes of others.Because logic dictates that a polite person is always a good person (even when such a person covertly resorts to emotional manipulation and appeals to superior morality). And of course, you’re an epitome of a good person. Multiple smileys and thank you’s and good wishes confirm that. Up it by 10x and you might even sprout some angel wings.(Oh, and 20+ years of online experience. Wow! Let’s not forget that. An argument to beat all arguments)

And yes, I’m just jealous of all your accomplishments. And of your innate superior goodness.

Del Ivers wrote:Not being concerned does not necessarily mean one is not split. What it means, at least in my experience, is a measure of autonomy and from that the possibility of assessing, wire-by-wire if necessary, why the split in the first place. Is the marionettist merely an aspect of myself, or is it an 'other'? That in itself requires some work that may hopefully reveal the true character of just being "me".

If I was not concerned what others thought or might do I'd be as spontaneous and open as I am with the small number of people I truly trust and how I am in the woods. No marrionette.

That's why the above-mentioned work on whence the split. Whose shame? Whose hate? it can be rough work, sometimes 24/7. I know.

The old Mother Night thing about pretending to be something, one becomes it, to some degree, is also in there. It's a bowing to power, and when one bows to power, one has to, on some level, believe that that power is right - about the good. And that is terrible.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And that is why we often choose to marrionetteer ourselves.

If you've personally achieved such a choice, then in my opinion you're doing all right. Eventually, shame, self-hate, and all that other stuff won't be an issue.

To be, or not to be, a marionettist . . .

[/quote]It's a choice. I think this makes it tiring. I think most people have forgotten that they are choosing. They made the choice, set up a sub-routine that this pretending is what they will always do, essentially handing the choice up to fate and others. I think this is less tiring for them. And they do not question the need for this pretending or their own desires to do something else are suppressed. So they can seel the whole thing off and never look back. They don't notice controllng themselves, at least not to the same degree. I wouldn't want to be like that, but it is tiring and unpleasant not being like that.

The bottom line is that you're crashing a topic and then justify it to yourself by saying there are "greater issues at stake". Whose issues? Personal beefs do not necessarily make for greater issues, except maybe in your own mind.

As for control and manipulation, your loss of control is glaring and evident by your intrusion. Whatever your problem with me is, I really don't care. But it must have been really eating at you and you just couldn't wait for a chance, any chance, to promote your 'greater issues'.

And a word of advice, controlling text on a forum board does not equate to easily manipulating and controlling men or women for that matter in REAL LIFE. I think you've invested way too much in this 2D representation of dialogue. I've had experience with far worse forum behavior than yours. Yeah, I threw in the E word to give you more cotton-candy fodder.

Why don't you just make a topic, call it, "I Gotta Wash That Self-Flattering, Manipulative, Smiley-Using Man Right Out OF My Hair". And no, I won't be crashing it, that's not my style.

Except for you, thus far any of the posters that I've had exchanges with have expressed nothing at all of what you're accusing me of. That should tell you something. If some of them feel the same way you do, then I ask them to note their grievances to the mods and Admin who will then assess and decide what is best.

Anyway, enough of your reactionary nonsense. But go ahead, have the last word, I know you couldn't make it till tomorrow without that.

Pandora wrote:And yes, I’m just jealous . . .

That would have sufficed without the rest and it would have spared us all from your proprietary ranting.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If I was not concerned what others thought or might do I'd be as spontaneous and open as I am with the small number of people I truly trust and how I am in the woods. No marrionette.

I understand that. Do you think you'll get to a point where you do not need the marionette anywhere? I'm not there yet myself but I like to think it's possible. Maybe a kind of marionette satori?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It's a choice. . . .(rest of paragraph)

So, for you, it is tiring and unpleasant to not have adopted a 'sub-routine', a mode to mask the reality of the matter. To use an odd analogy, it's like a clown that really thinks being a clown is tiring and unpleasant but since it's his livelihood he has to be the clown (marionette).

A delicate question: What makes you think or give you reason to believe that your perception of this is not a sub-routine itself? I'm not angling here, I just want to understand your angle of perception and its validation if any.

Imagine that we're two clowns backstage, or backtent. We're having a smoke waiting until we have to pack ourselves with the other clowns into the tiny car. You tell me about the sub-routine and all that. I respond that maybe that's your view but not necessarily mine or even some of the other clowns. Do you respond by telling me that I and the other clowns are not aware that we've chosen the sub-routine?

By the way, I'm thinking of relatively happy clowns, not the Stephen King variety.

Del Ivers wrote:I understand that. Do you think you'll get to a point where you do not need the marionette anywhere? I'm not there yet myself but I like to think it's possible. Maybe a kind of marionette satori?

I am keeping the door open, but it would require something that would be, or seem from our limited perspective, magic. I would have to be able to shift outer reality through changes in my self relation, and at a fundamental level. At least, my personal outer reality, what I experience.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It's a choice. . . .(rest of paragraph)

So, for you, it is tiring and unpleasant to not have adopted a 'sub-routine', a mode to mask the reality of the matter. To use an odd analogy, it's like a clown that really thinks being a clown is tiring and unpleasant but since it's his livelihood he has to be the clown (marionette).

It's not a livlihood. It is a set of tactics to reduce problems in a sick society. I do explore the boundaries and occasionally pop. I am always probing and adjusting and, then, having moods and specific kinds of days. If I was orienteering on a rainy muddy day, it might be a similar process. Better to take the steep hill than the bog, though the steep hill is a lung grinder. IOW I do my best to make choices that reduce suffering and yet also bring postive feelings and meaning and progress - as I determine them. I make no claims to being a perfect tactician.

Generally hiding a lot of my reactions seems to create less problems. But then I have to do the preventative work. And it is unpleasant, at least also.

A delicate question: What makes you think or give you reason to believe that your perception of this is not a sub-routine itself? I'm not angling here, I just want to understand your angle of perception and its validation if any.

Well, I can only check and recheck. I certainly have imprinted patterns that are adding to my misreads. I also think there are deeper layers where I am actually creating the milieu, but that's getting into stuff I don't want to have to defend in a context like this.

Imagine that we're two clowns backstage, or backtent. We're having a smoke waiting until we have to pack ourselves with the other clowns into the tiny car. You tell me about the sub-routine and all that. I respond that maybe that's your view but not necessarily mine or even some of the other clowns. Do you respond by telling me that I and the other clowns are not aware that we've chosen the sub-routine?

In general I would avoid that discussion, for precisely the same reasons I avoid showing other reactions. Telling someone you know something about them they do not know is pretty much asking for an unpleasant experience, unless they asked you, and often even then.

This isn't me saying that 'really' everyone is, deep down, having a hard time. I think some people are barely present in reality and I am sure some of these are having a good time in the main.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am keeping the door open, but it would require something that would be, or seem from our limited perspective, magic. I would have to be able to shift outer reality through changes in my self relation, and at a fundamental level. At least, my personal outer reality, what I experience.

It sounds like something from the Seth books by Jane Roberts. One of them, by the way, titled, 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. Some excerpts:

"Consciousness creates form. It is not the other way around."

"You see and feel what you expect to feel and see. The world as you know it is a picture of your expectations."

"You are the living picture of yourself. You project what you think you are outward into flesh. Your feelings, your conscious and unconscious thoughts, all alter and form your physical image. This is fairly easy for you to understand. It is not as easy, however, to realize that your feelings and thoughts form your exterior experience in the same way, or that the events that appear to happen to you are initiated by you within your mental or psychic inner environment."

"Exterior events,circumstances and conditions are meant as a kind of living feedback. Altering the state of the psyche automatically alters the physical circumstances."

"You change even the most permanent-seeming conditions of your life constantly through the varying attitudes you have toward them.There is nothing in your exterior experience that did not originate within you. Interactions with others do occur, of course, yet there are none that you do not accept or draw to you by your thoughts, attitudes, or emotions."

Does any of that ring any bells for you?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Generally hiding a lot of my reactions seems to create less problems. But then I have to do the preventative work. And it is unpleasant, at least also.

One of the things I've learned in later years is that 'hiding' a lot of reactions (to whatever/whomever) made for some clutter. Clearing that up wasn't, and isn't, easy especially when some of it was charged with strong emotions. At the time you tell yourself you're taking the high road and sometimes that is the case and consequences are circumvented. But later on something or another rears its head. I don't have regrets about taking the high road, but it's not always a guarantee against the occasional tiny rocks getting lodged in your shoes.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Telling someone you know something about them they do not know is pretty much asking for an unpleasant experience, unless they asked you, and often even then.

Yes, they feel like you're deconstructing their preferred construct. The question I ask myself then is if I am being helpful in showing them the reality of whatever or if in actuality their construct is what works best for them in their existential domain. I'm good with that, unless we're working on something together and the constructs appear incompatible. The aspect of compromise then comes into play and that brings with it all manner of 'adjustments'.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:This isn't me saying that 'really' everyone is, deep down, having a hard time. I think some people are barely present in reality and I am sure some of these are having a good time in the main.

Perhaps not all, but for some of those it may be that they indeed created their reality, manifested their constructs regardless of others' estimations. Or as a phrase I once read somewhere cautioned: 'If you don't create your reality, then others will create yours'. The problem there in some instances is analogous to the Emperor's New Clothes, the creator insists his or her constructs are real, but no one else sees them. Point this out to them and they might consider you a threat.

The clown throws the cigarette on the floor and snuffs it out with his oversized shoe. He turns to the other clown beside him: "Hey, what was it you wanted to tell me the other day about sub-routines, or something like that? The other clown answers, "Oh, it's nothing important". They then make their way to the tiny car along with the other clowns.

Del Ivers wrote:It sounds like something from the Seth books by Jane Roberts. One of them, by the way, titled, 'The Nature of Personal Reality'. Some excerpts:

"Consciousness creates form. It is not the other way around."

"You see and feel what you expect to feel and see. The world as you know it is a picture of your expectations."

"You are the living picture of yourself. You project what you think you are outward into flesh. Your feelings, your conscious and unconscious thoughts, all alter and form your physical image. This is fairly easy for you to understand. It is not as easy, however, to realize that your feelings and thoughts form your exterior experience in the same way, or that the events that appear to happen to you are initiated by you within your mental or psychic inner environment."

"Exterior events,circumstances and conditions are meant as a kind of living feedback. Altering the state of the psyche automatically alters the physical circumstances."

"You change even the most permanent-seeming conditions of your life constantly through the varying attitudes you have toward them.There is nothing in your exterior experience that did not originate within you. Interactions with others do occur, of course, yet there are none that you do not accept or draw to you by your thoughts, attitudes, or emotions."

Does any of that ring any bells for you?

Yes, though it's not quite what I mean. Or better put I don't think books or entities like this one understand how deeply we are imprinted and how far down and through what emotional pain one must allow to the fore and unconscious misunderstandings one eliminate to get through this. So skeptics look at this and think it is ridiculous, having no idea what kind of herculean effort is involved. The new-agish believers have a rather ephemeral presence here in reality so they can just 'change their thoughts' and things get better, never having dealt with the heavier types of experiences less ephemeral people have and have to move through to get somewhere.

One of the things I've learned in later years is that 'hiding' a lot of reactions (to whatever/whomever) made for some clutter. Clearing that up wasn't, and isn't, easy especially when some of it was charged with strong emotions. At the time you tell yourself you're taking the high road and sometimes that is the case and consequences are circumvented. But later on something or another rears its head. I don't have regrets about taking the high road, but it's not always a guarantee against the occasional tiny rocks getting lodged in your shoes.

I don't really tell myself it is the high road. I consciously experience it as protecting myself. But there is, also, guilt involved.

Yes, they feel like you're deconstructing their preferred construct. The question I ask myself then is if I am being helpful in showing them the reality of whatever or if in actuality their construct is what works best for them in their existential domain. I'm good with that, unless we're working on something together and the constructs appear incompatible. The aspect of compromise then comes into play and that brings with it all manner of 'adjustments'.

Again, you are nicer than me. I am not worried about pulling them out of their preferred denials. I am worried about what they will do if it happens.

Perhaps not all, but for some of those it may be that they indeed created their reality, manifested their constructs regardless of others' estimations. Or as a phrase I once read somewhere cautioned: 'If you don't create your reality, then others will create yours'. The problem there in some instances is analogous to the Emperor's New Clothes, the creator insists his or her constructs are real, but no one else sees them. Point this out to them and they might consider you a threat.

Yes.

The clown throws the cigarette on the floor and snuffs it out with his oversized shoe. He turns to the other clown beside him: "Hey, what was it you wanted to tell me the other day about sub-routines, or something like that? The other clown answers, "Oh, it's nothing important". They then make their way to the tiny car along with the other clowns.

Exactly, sometimes I test the waters, then something tells me to back off. Of course once in a while it can go well. And I am appreciated, often, for what I can suss out. But it's delicate stuff.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The new-agish believers have a rather ephemeral presence here in reality so they can just 'change their thoughts' and things get better, never having dealt with the heavier types of experiences less ephemeral people have and have to move through to get somewhere.

Consciousness has densities. Would that be the right take on that? It's like a saying I once read that we differ from God only in degree. Were the ephemerals at one time less ephemeral?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't really tell myself it is the high road.

Semantics. Call it the happy trail or anything that indicates optimization.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But there is, also, guilt involved.

In what way? In that you're not true to yourself, to others, a combination of both?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But it's delicate stuff.

As delicate as a grain of air, water, earth and fire in a never-ending universe.

Del Ivers wrote:Consciousness has densities. Would that be the right take on that? It's like a saying I once read that we differ from God only in degree. Were the ephemerals at one time less ephemeral?

I don't think so, but for practical purposes it doesn't matter much.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't really tell myself it is the high road.

Semantics. Call it the happy trail or anything that indicates optimization.

OK, it might be semantics. But if I were to use 'high road' to describe my choice, it would mean I was choosing to be good, out of care for others (at least, also) while I choose out of practical concerns and primarily selfish ones.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But there is, also, guilt involved.

In what way? In that you're not true to yourself, to others, a combination of both?

Well, if I pop and let out emotion, I can feel guilty if the other person finds it hard.

If there are densities of consciousness then I think there would be degrees of ephemerality. In the marionette context, the marionette would be lighter or heavier. That would be a consideration for the marionettist. For example, you as the marionettist are keenly aware of when to 'back off', aware of the, "delicate stuff". You are aware as you've noted of the varied sentiments your actions may elicit from others. Those are degrees of regard.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:..while I choose out of practical concerns and primarily selfish ones.

Practicality is not necessarily selfishness. Let's say I'm climbing a large rock formation. I've got the equipment: ropes, pitons, climbing hammer, etc. Along the way I pass a free climber using nothing but his hands and feet. I wouldn't feel selfish about that.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I can feel guilty if the other person finds it hard.

Would you feel guilty telling a friend who was a hard drug addict that it was killing him?

And on the other side of the coin, did you ever meet up with someone who expressed concern and regard for you in some manner only to later find out it was actually a disguised selfishness of some sort on their part? Would you hold off on telling them what dirtbags they were because they might find it hard?

Del Ivers wrote:Would you feel guilty telling a friend who was a hard drug addict that it was killing him?

It's possible.

And on the other side of the coin, did you ever meet up with someone who expressed concern and regard for you in some manner only to later find out it was actually a disguised selfishness of some sort on their part? Would you hold off on telling them what dirtbags they were because they might find it hard?

Best I can tell from the experiences which make one question the marionette/marionnetist arrangement, is that it's either a split experienced by the individual, or that the marionnettist is an 'other'.

Those in the absolute determinism camp will nod and say that the marionnette, for all its self-entitled individuality, is nothing more than an automaton with a snowball's chance in hell of being a free agent. Laugh, cry, fart, it doesn't matter, it's all been programmed. Even your thoughts about free will have been scripted.

The free will contingent will say it's a split (though some of the more rebellious will not even admit to such) caused by the individual's capabilities in dealing with problematic experiential elements. You call the shots, but now and then you're going to get hit by shots from elsewhere. From there it's how you recuperate whether a bit more determined or a bit more shy.

I can see the merit of both views but neither seems particularly conclusive.

Absolute Determinism (AD) is one of those things that serves traditional and modern sensibilities in tandem: "It is written", "It is destiny", "It's the will of God", stuff that you would have never heard Bob Ross mention while painting 'happy trees'.

Modernistically, many divest AD of it's traditional referencing in favor of a more impersonal view, one where the Cosmos is so vast and its dimensions so unknown that assessments about its deterministic superiority are more speculation than actuality. It's like a bubble in the middle of the Pacific Ocean regarding the ocean as absolute in its presence but it doesn't realize that thousands of miles to the east is a continent which has wildly different opinions on the matter.

Relative determinism. Yes, that's an easy way out but I would tweak it a bit and say it's more a phasing through deterministic degrees. I'm not getting into a discussion with determinists here whether of absolute or of the 99 cents store variety. I'm just focusing on the marionette/marionettist arrangement.

Personally, I think the marionettist may be of an epigenetic character. I use that here not only in the sense of transgenerational inheritance, but also as transgenerational projection. Examine that connection and one begins to see the, shall we say, 'marionettic' aspects as described in the OP re child/adult combinations. The marionette is basically a 'scout' sent into the unknown by the marionettist. The marionette goes through its local phases of the child/adult combinations but in the larger picture the marionette is accruing information for future scouts. Whether the marionette becomes a marionettist is debatable. For all its 'individuality', once it exhausts its existential management it may simply rejoin the marionettist plurality from whence it came.

Looking at the above from a different direction, if the premise holds that humans evolved from single-celled animals, then the marionettist process has been in effect from around 3.5 billion years ago. Each scout accrued information about the 'unknown' which was then employed to the point where we as humans are now. Thus we can regard the M/M arrangement as variable in terms of 'who is which'. For it to be strictly one or the other would seem out of kilter with the evolutionary/emergence impulse.

Two questions linger: How far back does the M/M plurality extend? Secondly, from 'where' did it come from previous to the 3.5 B years? Big questions that I will be thinking about now and then provided I'm not otherwise occupied with the 'strings'?

That's it for me. Just thought this aspect of it would be relevant overall to the OP.